Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 180 references

This paper establishes that mass ratio and black hole spin control the dynamical ejecta of black hole–neutron star mergers, and that the strongest-disruption models reproduce the late-time infrared behaviour of the GW170817 kilonova.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 09:51 UTC pith:Y22UUBUG

load-bearing objection Solid, honest simulation paper mapping BHNS ejecta trends in a new corner, but the quantitative kilonova predictions rest on an unquantified Ye assumption. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20609 v1 pith:Y22UUBUG submitted 2026-07-22 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Black hole-neutron star binaries with high spins and large mass asymmetries: III. Properties of the ejected material and its electromagnetic signatures

Konrad Topolski , Samuel D. Tootle , Paramvir Singh , Mattia Bulla , Luciano Rezzolla This is my paper
classification gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords black hole–neutron star binariesdynamical ejectakilonovaer-process nucleosynthesisblack hole spinmass ratioelectron fractionradiative transfer
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tries to show that in a black hole–neutron star merger the amount, composition, geometry, and speed of the material flung out during tidal disruption are set by just two binary parameters: the mass ratio and the black hole's spin. It routes that ejected material through nuclear-reaction and radiation-transfer calculations to predict what such events would look like as kilonovae. If the central claim is right, the most disruptive configurations—mass ratios near 4–5 and spin near 0.8—eject roughly 0.04–0.06 solar masses of extremely neutron-rich matter. That matter produces an optically dark, infrared-bright transient whose late-time glow can look like the GW170817 kilonova, while weaker disruptions stay fainter and faster-fading. These trends give observers concrete expectations for what a black hole–neutron star kilonova should look like when the next neutron-star–black-hole merger is detected.

Core claim

Across six general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations, the paper finds monotonic correlations: decreasing the mass ratio or increasing black hole spin increases the dynamical ejecta mass and broadens the electron-fraction and entropy distributions, while larger mass asymmetries yield higher asymptotic ejecta velocities when disruption occurs. The ejected matter is uniformly neutron-rich (electron fraction around 0.05), leading to r-process nucleosynthesis that overproduces the second and third peaks relative to the solar pattern and that fills the ejecta with lanthanides. The resulting synthetic light curves are dim in the optical and bright in the near-infrared; the strong-disrupt

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the tidal transfer of energy and angular momentum from the binary to the disrupted star, diagnosed in phase space of specific energy and angular momentum: matter that gains more specific energy than it loses becomes unbound, and the distribution of that unbound matter in electron fraction, entropy, and velocity is the quantity that carries everything downstream. Those distributions are fed into a nuclear-reaction network to obtain r-process yields and then rescaled under homologous expansion and propagated through a radiative-transfer code to produce light curves. The low electron fraction, simply advected in the simulations without neutrino transport, is what l

Load-bearing premise

The whole kilonova prediction rests on the ejected matter's electron fraction staying frozen near 0.05, because the simulations do not transport neutrinos and the light-curve models must assume a slightly higher electron fraction for their opacities.

What would settle it

A future black hole–neutron star merger with well-measured mass ratio and spin that shows a bright optical kilonova, or an r-process pattern with a prominent first peak, would contradict the predicted optically dark, second/third-peak-dominated transient. On the calculation side, a neutrino-transport simulation of the same binaries that shifts the electron fraction above roughly 0.1 in the dynamical ejecta would falsify the composition assumption, as would a longer evolution showing the ejecta do not settle into homologous expansion.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A black hole–neutron star merger with mass ratio 4–5 and black hole spin near 0.8 should appear as a fast-fading optical source and a longer-lived near-infrared source, with late-time emission resembling AT2017gfo.
  • Strong-disruption dynamical ejecta are so neutron-rich that their r-process pattern is dominated by fission cycling onto the second and third peaks, contributing little to the first peak.
  • The brightness and duration of the kilonova scale with dynamical ejecta mass; weak-disruption, high-mass-ratio systems are fainter by up to an order of magnitude and fade earlier.
  • Viewing angle matters: equatorial sightlines through the dense tidal ejecta are dimmer at early times, while particular azimuthal alignments can produce shallow decays or mild re-brightenings at 1–3 days.
  • The non-detection of an electromagnetic counterpart to S190814bv is consistent with all six models, with strong-disruption face-on views closest to the upper limits.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If neutrino irradiation is weaker than assumed, parts of the ejecta could stay even more neutron-rich, strengthening the infrared dominance; if it is stronger, optical emission would brighten and BHNS kilonova colors would shift blueward.
  • The radiative-transfer stage currently uses opacities evaluated at a slightly higher electron fraction because existing tables stop there; dedicated low-electron-fraction opacity tables could change the predicted early optical light curves and inferred ejecta masses.
  • The mapping from binary parameters to ejecta properties suggests a 'sweet spot' near mass ratio 4–5 and spin 0.8 for detectable kilonovae; targeted follow-up of future gravitational-wave candidates in that region could test the plateau in ejected mass.
  • The 15 ms snapshot is rescaled to day-timescales assuming homologous expansion; longer evolutions would test whether residual non-radial velocities cause shell crossing that mixes compositions and modifies the light curve.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes six GRMHD simulations of BHNS binaries (Q=4–7, χ_BH=0.4–0.8, DD2 EOS) previously evolved in Paper II, focusing on the dynamical ejecta. It characterizes ejecta mass, angular morphology, electron fraction, entropy, and velocity distributions (Sec. III); computes r-process yields with the SkyNet network (Sec. IV); and produces kilonova light curves with POSSIS (Sec. V), comparing with AT2017gfo and S190814bv. The main conclusions are that lower Q and higher χ_BH produce more massive and broader-distribution ejecta, that large Q gives higher asymptotic velocities, and that strong-disruption models reproduce the late-time AT2017gfo bolometric behavior while all models lie below S190814bv upper limits.

Significance. If the predictions hold, the paper provides a direct mapping from BHNS binary parameters to ejecta properties and EM observables, going beyond parametric models. It uses a consistent ab initio pipeline (GRMHD→tracers→SkyNet→POSSIS) and includes useful internal diagnostics, e.g., volume-integral and surface-flux ejecta masses agree to <0.5% (Sec. III A). The comparisons with AT2017gfo and S190814bv are genuine external benchmarks rather than tuning data. However, the quantitative EM conclusions rest on two unquantified approximations—the absence of neutrino transport and the Y_e=0.1 opacity floor—so the significance is conditional on those being resolved.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III A, Sec. IV B, Sec. VI] The claim that neutrino irradiation is 'expected to be very modest' is not derived. The GRMHD runs simply advect Y_e (Sec. III A); no neutrino-luminosity estimate, timescale calculation, or comparison with a leakage/M1 run is provided. Since Y_e≈0.05 drives both the r-process pattern and the lanthanide opacity budget, this is a load-bearing uncertainty. Please provide a quantitative estimate or reframe the conclusions as conditional on this assumption.
  2. [Sec. V A] POSSIS opacities are evaluated at Y_e=0.1 because 'existing tables limit the ability to track spatial variations of Y_e for Y_e<0.1', while the ejecta have Y_e≈0.05. Opacity in the 0.05–0.15 range is a strong function of Y_e, so the synthetic light curves do not use the actual composition. The late-time AT2017gfo match claimed in Sec. V C should be tested for sensitivity to the opacity floor, or the claim should be softened.
  3. [Sec. V B, Eqs. (7)–(8)] The rescaling of the ~15 ms snapshot to t=0.1 d assumes homologous expansion. Non-radial velocity components are 5–10% of the total velocity (Sec. III B), and the extraction time is earlier than the ~80 ms usually considered in such hand-offs. The paper cites Ref. [120] for the modest impact, but that reference concerns longer evolutions; the validity of the rescaling at 15 ms should be justified or tested.
  4. [Sec. IV A] The relation between the bare and NSE-corrected expansion timescale is garbled as written: 'τ=τ_bare(ρ/ρ0(Ye,s))^3' is dimensionally inconsistent. Please give the correct expression, derive it from Eqs. (7)–(8), and state how sensitive the r-process yields are to this correction.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VI] The conclusion states that lower Q/higher χ_BH produce 'broader Y_e distributions,' but Tab. III and Fig. 2 show nearly identical Y_e distributions (⟨Y_e⟩≈0.04–0.05) with no clear broadening. Please revise or support this statement.
  2. [Sec. V F] Because all models lie below the S190814bv magnitude limits, the comparison only shows consistency with non-detection; it does not constrain the models. This should be stated explicitly to avoid over-interpretation.
  3. [Sec. IV B] The repeated parenthetical 'which is however expected to be very modest' and the typo 'is is' should be cleaned up.
  4. [Sec. III A] The definition of v_kin in Eq. (5) neglects gravitational potential energy, and the paper notes that no Newtonian correction is applied. It would be useful to state the expected size of this correction for the Q and χ_BH range considered.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the derivation chain is forward-modeled and benchmarked externally; the flagged approximations are limitations, not circular reductions.

full rationale

I find no circular step in this paper. The dynamical ejecta properties are taken from the GRMHD simulations reported in Paper II [81] and are compared with independent published results (Foucart et al., Kyutoku et al., Kawaguchi et al., Hayashi et al.), so the central input data are externally falsifiable rather than defined by the present conclusions. The v_kin(Q, chi_BH) linear fit is explicitly a descriptive fit to the authors' own six simulations and is not used to generate a predicted quantity; it is not an instance of a fitted parameter being relabeled as a prediction. The low electron fraction, Y_e ~ 0.05, is admittedly a consequence of the absence of neutrino transport ('the electron fraction is simply advected'), but the mapping from the initial NS composition to the ejected material is still dynamical (different binaries eject different fluid layers), and the paper explicitly flags neutrino irradiation as a limitation rather than a derived result. The r-process abundances are forward-modeled with SkyNet from (Y_e, s, tau) trajectories and are not tuned to solar data; the paper highlights the mismatch with solar peaks as a finding. The POSSIS light curves use external tabulated opacities at Y_e = 0.1 because the tables do not extend below that value; this is an acknowledged modeling approximation and not a fitted parameter. The AT2017gfo and S190814bv comparisons are genuine external benchmarks: the paper states that none of the simulations was tailored to those events, and no parameter was adjusted to force agreement. Self-citations to Refs. [80, 81] provide the simulation suite and a disruption classification that is independently calibrated to the external schemes of Refs. [84-87], so they are not load-bearing in a circular manner. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained in the sense that each stage (GRMHD ejecta, nucleosynthesis, radiative transfer) is a forward calculation with acknowledged approximations, not a reduction of the output to the input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard numerical-relativity analysis tools plus three modeling choices that the paper itself flags: frozen Y_e without neutrino transport (Sec. III A), opacity tables floored at Y_e=0.1 while the ejecta sits at Y_e≈0.05 (Sec. V A), and homologous rescaling of a ~15 ms snapshot (Sec. V B). No new physical entities are introduced. One genuine fit — v_kin(Q, χ_BH) with 3 parameters on 6 simulations (Sec. III A) — is descriptive and labeled as such.

free parameters (4)
  • v_kin linear-fit coefficients (A, B, C) = A=0.1276, B=0.01587, C=0.2034
    Three parameters fitted to 6 simulations to capture the v_kin(Q, χ_BH) trend; the authors note the fit 'would benefit from additional simulations' (Sec. III A). Used descriptively, not for predictions.
  • Initial tracer temperature T_0 for NSE = 6 GK ≈ 0.517 MeV
    Hand-imposed NSE starting temperature for SkyNet trajectories; higher than the actual ejecta temperature and used to set initial density ρ0 via the EOS (Sec. IV A). Affects all r-process yields.
  • Opacity-table floor electron fraction Y_e = 0.1
    POSSIS opacities are evaluated at Y_e=0.1 because the Tanaka et al. tables do not extend below this; the actual ejecta has Y_e≈0.05 (Sec. V A). Directly affects all synthetic light curves.
  • NSE expansion-timescale correction relation = τ = τ_bare (ρ0(Y_e,s)/ρ)^(1/3)
    Mapping between the bare tracer expansion timescale and the network input depends on Y_e and s through the EOS (Sec. IV A, Eqs. 7–8); a modeling choice that reshapes the nucleosynthesis trajectories.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption After disruption, fluid elements move approximately geodesically, and the binary spacetime admits approximate Killing vectors ∂_t and ∂_φ, making specific energy and angular momentum conserved for the ejecta analysis.
    Invoked in Sec. II A to construct the (Ẽ, Ĵ) phase-space in Fig. 1; the authors acknowledge the assumption is only reasonable during late inspiral and after disruption.
  • domain assumption The electron fraction is frozen at its advected value because neutrino transport is absent and neutrino interaction timescales exceed the dynamical timescale.
    Sec. III A; load-bearing for the r-process pattern and lanthanide content. The paper asserts the effect of neutrino irradiation would be 'very modest' (Sec. IV B) without computing it.
  • domain assumption Homologous expansion (x = v t) is valid from t−t_mer ≈ 15 ms onward for the radiative-transfer initialization.
    Sec. V B; needed to rescale the ejecta snapshot to T=0.1 d for POSSIS. Prior work suggests modest impact near ~80 ms (Ref. [120]), but at 15 ms this is an extrapolation.
  • domain assumption SkyNet nuclear reaction rates, fission yields (Refs. [130–134]) and the Tanaka et al. opacity tables (Ref. [159]) are accurate in the extremely neutron-rich regime of interest.
    Secs. IV and V A; standard domain tools used as black boxes. The opacity table's lowest Y_e value is itself part of the limitation.
  • domain assumption The kinetic-energy estimate v_kin = sqrt(2 T_ej / M_ej) assumes Newtonian dynamics, neglecting gravitational potential energy and internal energy.
    Sec. III A, Eqs. (3)–(5); acknowledged by the authors as an approximation ('clearly an approximation and does not take into account e.g., the gravitational potential energy').

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 4883 in / 7244 out tokens · 203123 ms · 2026-08-01T09:51:13.759157+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Compact binary systems consisting of a black hole (BH) and a neutron star (NS) are expected to provide detectable signals both in the gravitational wave and in the electromagnetic channels, thus representing excellent sources for multi-messenger astronomy. In this third paper in a series, we report on the geometric and thermodynamic properties of the purely dynamical ejecta component modeled in our general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamical simulations of BHNS systems over a comprehensive binary parameter space consisting of large mass ratio and high BH spin. The tidal disruption and dynamical mass ejection is studied by monitoring the transfer of energy and angular momentum to matter for the particular case of a highly unequal-mass binary with large BH spin, extending known results for low-mass-ratio, irrotational BHNS binaries. By varying the binary parameters, we investigate their influence on the geometric, thermodynamic, and kinematic properties of the ejected matter. Furthermore, we employ the nuclear-reaction network SkyNet to obtain the elemental abundances resulting from the r-process active in the ejecta and study how they depend on the properties of the progenitor objects. Finally, using the radiative-transfer code POSSIS, we compute the kilonova light-curves from the results of our simulations, discuss their bolometric and optical/near-infrared evolution, and compare them with the AT2017gfo data and upper-limits for S190814bv, finding overall consistency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20609 by Konrad Topolski, Luciano Rezzolla, Mattia Bulla, Paramvir Singh, Samuel D. Tootle.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Distribution of the baryonic mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Distributions of the ejected mass in terms of the electron fraction [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The same as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Angular distribution of the rest-mass density of the unbound matter (upper hemispheres) and of the corresponding Lorentz factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Low-latitude view of the angular extent of the dynamical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The distributions of “bare” and NSE-adjusted expan [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Relative abundances obtained as a result of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Volume rendering of the rest-mass density for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Total bolometric luminosities for the different binaries considered when scaled to a distance of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Photometric luminosities given in terms of the apparent magnitude, computed from the simulation data for the various binaries and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Comparison of the photometry for the event S190814bv [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. The same as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_15.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

180 extracted references · 143 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and The Virgo Collabora- tion (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 161101 (2017), arXiv:1710.05832 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  2. [2]

    The LIGO Scientific Collaborationet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L12 (2017), arXiv:1710.05833 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  3. [3]

    Goldsteinet al., Astrophys

    A. Goldsteinet al., Astrophys. J. Letters848, L14 (2017), arXiv:1710.05446 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  4. [4]

    Savchenkoet al., Astrophys

    V . Savchenkoet al., Astrophys. J. Letters848, L15 (2017), arXiv:1710.05449 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    D. A. Coulteret al., Science358, 1556 (2017), arXiv:1710.05452 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  6. [6]

    Chornocket al., Astrophys

    R. Chornocket al., Astrophys. J. Letters848, L19 (2017), arXiv:1710.05454 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    Nichollet al., Astrophys

    M. Nichollet al., Astrophys. J. Letters848, L18 (2017), arXiv:1710.05456 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    P. S. Cowperthwaiteet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.848, L17 (2017), arXiv:1710.05840 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  9. [9]

    Pianet al., Nature551, 67 (2017), arXiv:1710.05858 [astro- ph.HE]

    E. Pianet al., Nature551, 67 (2017), arXiv:1710.05858 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Smartt, Nature551, 75 (2017), arXiv:1710.05841

    S.et al.. Smartt, Nature551, 75 (2017), arXiv:1710.05841

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  11. [11]

    N. R. Tanviret al., Astrophys. J. Letters848, L27 (2017), arXiv:1710.05455 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    Tanakaet al., Public

    M. Tanakaet al., Public. Astron. Soc. of Japan69, 102 (2017), arXiv:1710.05850 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Valentiet al., Astrophys

    S. Valentiet al., Astrophys. J. Letters848, L24 (2017), arXiv:1710.05854 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  14. [14]

    Margalit and B

    B. Margalit and B. D. Metzger, Astrophys. J. Lett.850, L19 (2017), arXiv:1710.05938 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  15. [15]

    Rezzolla, E

    L. Rezzolla, E. R. Most, and L. R. Weih, Astrophys. J. Lett. 852, L25 (2018), arXiv:1711.00314 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    M. Ruiz, S. L. Shapiro, and A. Tsokaros, Phys. Rev. D97, 021501 (2018), arXiv:1711.00473 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    E. R. Most, L. R. Weih, L. Rezzolla, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 261103 (2018), arXiv:1803.00549 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    G. F. Burgio, A. Drago, G. Pagliara, H.-J. Schulze, and J.-B. Wei, ArXiv e-prints (2018), arXiv:1803.09696 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    S. De, D. Finstad, J. M. Lattimer, D. A. Brown, E. Berger, and C. M. Biwer, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 091102 (2018), arXiv:1804.08583 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    Landry and R

    P. Landry and R. Essick, Phys. Rev. D99, 084049 (2019), arXiv:1811.12529 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    Baiotti, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics109, 103714 (2019), 1907.08534

    L. Baiotti, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics109, 103714 (2019), 1907.08534

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  22. [22]

    Raaijmakerset al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1912.11031 (2019), arXiv:1912.11031 [astro-ph.HE]

    G. Raaijmakerset al., arXiv e-prints , arXiv:1912.11031 (2019), arXiv:1912.11031 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1912

  23. [23]

    Shibata, E

    M. Shibata, E. Zhou, K. Kiuchi, and S. Fujibayashi, Phys. Rev. D100, 023015 (2019), arXiv:1905.03656 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  24. [24]

    Essick, I

    R. Essick, I. Tews, P. Landry, and A. Schwenk, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 192701 (2021), arXiv:2102.10074 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  25. [25]

    Annala, T

    E. Annala, T. Gorda, E. Katerini, A. Kurkela, J. N ¨attil¨a, V . Paschalidis, and A. Vuorinen, Physical Review X12, 011058 (2022), arXiv:2105.05132 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    G. F. Burgio, H. J. Schulze, I. Vidana, and J. B. Wei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.120, 103879 (2021), arXiv:2105.03747 [nucl-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  27. [27]

    C. D. Capano, I. Tews, S. M. Brown, B. Margalit, S. De, S. Ku- mar, D. A. Brown, B. Krishnan, and S. Reddy, Nature Astron- omy 10.1038/s41550-020-1014-6 (2020), arXiv:1908.10352 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  28. [28]

    Chatziioannou, Gen

    K. Chatziioannou, Gen. Rel. Grav.52, 109 (2020), arXiv:2006.03168 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  29. [29]

    Raaijmakers, S

    G. Raaijmakers, S. K. Greif, K. Hebeler, T. Hinderer, S. Nis- sanke, A. Schwenk, T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, J. M. Lat- timer, and W. C. G. Ho, Astrophys. J. Lett.918, L29 (2021), arXiv:2105.06981 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [30]

    J. M. Lattimer, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.71, 433 (2021)

    2021

  31. [31]

    Breschi, A

    M. Breschi, A. Perego, S. Bernuzzi, W. Del Pozzo, V . Nedora, D. Radice, and D. Vescovi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.505, 1661 (2021), arXiv:2101.01201 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  32. [32]

    Nathanail, E

    A. Nathanail, E. R. Most, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett. 908, L28 (2021), arXiv:2101.01735 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  33. [33]

    Lazzati, R

    D. Lazzati, R. Perna, B. J. Morsony, D. Lopez-Camara, M. Cantiello, R. Ciolfi, B. Giacomazzo, and J. C. Workman, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 241103 (2018), arXiv:1712.03237 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    K. P. Mooley, A. T. Deller, O. Gottlieb, E. Nakar, G. Halli- nan, S. Bourke, D. A. Frail, A. Horesh, A. Corsi, and K. Ho- tokezaka, Nature561, 355 (2018), arXiv:1806.09693 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  35. [35]

    Watsonet al., Nature574, 497 (2019), arXiv:1910.10510 [astro-ph.HE]

    D. Watsonet al., Nature574, 497 (2019), arXiv:1910.10510 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class

    F. Acerneseet al.(VIRGO), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 024001 (2015), arXiv:1408.3978 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  37. [37]

    Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class

    J. Aasiet al.(LIGO Scientific), Class. Quant. Grav.32, 074001 (2015), arXiv:1411.4547 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  38. [38]

    The Ligo Scientific Collaboration, the VIRGO Collaboration, and the KAGRA Collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett.915, L5 (2021), arXiv:2106.15163 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [39]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2025), arXiv:2508.18082 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  40. [40]

    A. G. Abacet al.(LIGO Scientific, VIRGO, KAGRA), (2026), arXiv:2605.27223 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    Dichiaraet al., Astrophys

    S. Dichiaraet al., Astrophys. J. Lett923, L32 (2021), arXiv:2110.12047 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Fletcheret al.(Fermi Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor Team, LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Astrophys

    C. Fletcheret al.(Fermi Gamma-Ray Burst Monitor Team, LIGO Scientific, Virgo, KAGRA), Astrophys. J.964, 149 (2024), arXiv:2308.13666 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  43. [43]

    B. D. Lackey, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, P. R. Brady, and J. L. Friedman, Phys. Rev. D89, 043009 (2014), arXiv:1303.6298 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  44. [44]

    L. W. P. Mathias, F. Di Clemente, M. Bulla, and A. Drago, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.527, 11053 (2023), arXiv:2309.00890 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  45. [45]

    Raaijmakers, inNeutron Star Astrophysics at the Cross- 25 roads: Magnetars and the Multimessenger Revolution, IAU Symposium, V ol

    G. Raaijmakers, inNeutron Star Astrophysics at the Cross- 25 roads: Magnetars and the Multimessenger Revolution, IAU Symposium, V ol. 363, edited by E. Troja and M. G. Baring (2023) pp. 10–18

    2023

  46. [46]

    Rezzolla, L

    L. Rezzolla, L. Baiotti, B. Giacomazzo, D. Link, and J. A. Font, Class. Quantum Grav.27, 114105 (2010), arXiv:1001.3074 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  47. [47]

    M. B. Deaton, M. D. Duez, F. Foucart, E. O’Connor, C. D. Ott, L. E. Kidder, C. D. Muhlberger, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilagyi, Astrophys. J.776, 47 (2013), arXiv:1304.3384 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  48. [48]

    Paschalidis, M

    V . Paschalidis, M. Ruiz, and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophys. J. Lett. 806, L14 (2015), arXiv:1410.7392 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  49. [49]

    Foucart, E

    F. Foucart, E. O’Connor, L. Roberts, M. D. Duez, R. Haas, L. E. Kidder, C. D. Ott, H. P. Pfeiffer, M. A. Scheel, and B. Szilagyi, Phys. Rev. D91, 124021 (2015), arXiv:1502.04146 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  50. [50]

    Foucart, D

    F. Foucart, D. Desai, W. Brege, M. D. Duez, D. Kasen, D. A. Hemberger, L. E. Kidder, H. P. Pfeiffer, and M. A. Scheel, Classical and Quantum Gravity34, 044002 (2017), arXiv:1611.01159 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  51. [51]

    Kyutoku, K

    K. Kyutoku, K. Kiuchi, Y . Sekiguchi, M. Shibata, and K. Taniguchi, Phys. Rev. D97, 023009 (2018), arXiv:1710.00827 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Brege, M

    W. Brege, M. D. Duez, F. Foucart, M. B. Deaton, J. Caro, D. A. Hemberger, L. E. Kidder, E. O’Connor, H. P. Pfeif- fer, and M. A. Scheel, Phys. Rev. D98, 063009 (2018), arXiv:1804.09823 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  53. [53]

    M. Ruiz, S. L. Shapiro, and A. Tsokaros, Phys. Rev. D98, 123017 (2018), arXiv:1810.08618 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  54. [54]

    E. R. Most, L. J. Papenfort, S. D. Tootle, and L. Rezzolla, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society506, 3511 (2021), arXiv:2106.06391 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    Hayashi, S

    K. Hayashi, S. Fujibayashi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y . Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D106, 023008 (2022)

    2022

  56. [56]

    Gottliebet al., Astrophys

    O. Gottliebet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.954, L21 (2023), arXiv:2306.14947 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  57. [57]

    Hayashi, K

    K. Hayashi, K. Kiuchi, K. Kyutoku, Y . Sekiguchi, and M. Shi- bata, Phys. Rev. D107, 123001 (2023)

    2023

  58. [58]

    Wanajo, S

    S. Wanajo, S. Fujibayashi, K. Hayashi, K. Kiuchi, Y . Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 241201 (2024), arXiv:2212.04507 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Korobkin, S

    O. Korobkin, S. Rosswog, A. Arcones, and C. Winteler, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.426, 1940 (2012), arXiv:1206.2379 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1940

  60. [60]

    B. D. Metzger, Living Rev. Rel.23, 1 (2020), arXiv:1910.01617 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  61. [61]

    Perego, D

    A. Perego, D. Radice, and S. Bernuzzi, Astrophys. J. Lett.850, L37 (2017), arXiv:1711.03982 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  62. [62]

    Radice, A

    D. Radice, A. Perego, S. Bernuzzi, and B. Zhang, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.481, 3670 (2018), arXiv:1803.10865 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  63. [63]

    Kasen, B

    D. Kasen, B. Metzger, J. Barnes, E. Quataert, and E. Ramirez- Ruiz, Nature551, 80 (2017), arXiv:1710.05463 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    Fern ´andez, E

    R. Fern ´andez, E. Quataert, J. Schwab, D. Kasen, and S. Rosswog, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.449, 390 (2015), arXiv:1412.5588 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  65. [65]

    Kawaguchi, K

    K. Kawaguchi, K. Kyutoku, M. Shibata, and M. Tanaka, As- trophys. J.825, 52 (2016), arXiv:1601.07711 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  66. [66]

    Fern ´andez, F

    R. Fern ´andez, F. Foucart, D. Kasen, J. Lippuner, D. Desai, and L. F. Roberts, Classical and Quantum Gravity34, 154001 (2017), arXiv:1612.04829 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  67. [67]

    Li and R.-F

    Y . Li and R.-F. Shen, Astrophys. J.879, 31 (2019), arXiv:1904.11841 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  68. [68]

    Barbieri, O

    C. Barbieri, O. S. Salafia, A. Perego, M. Colpi, and G. Ghirlanda, Eur. Phys. J. A56, 8 (2020), arXiv:1908.08822 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  69. [69]

    Andreoniet al., Astrophys

    I. Andreoniet al., Astrophys. J.890, 131 (2020), arXiv:1910.13409 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  70. [70]

    Anandet al., Nature Astronomy5, 46 (2021), arXiv:2009.07210 [astro-ph.HE]

    S. Anandet al., Nature Astronomy5, 46 (2021), arXiv:2009.07210 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  71. [71]

    Darbha, D

    S. Darbha, D. Kasen, F. Foucart, and D. J. Price, Astrophysical Journal Lett.915, 69 (2021), arXiv:2103.03378 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  72. [72]

    Markin, A

    I. Markin, A. Neuweiler, A. Abac, S. V . Chaurasia, M. Ujevic, M. Bulla, and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. D108, 064025 (2023), arXiv:2304.11642 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  73. [73]

    Kunnumkai, A

    K. Kunnumkai, A. Palmese, M. Bulla, T. Dietrich, A. M. Farah, and P. T. H. Pang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2409.10651 (2024), arXiv:2409.10651 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2024

  74. [74]

    Kawaguchi, N

    K. Kawaguchi, N. Domoto, S. Fujibayashi, H. Hamidani, K. Hayashi, M. Shibata, M. Tanaka, and S. Wanajo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.535, 3711 (2024), arXiv:2404.15027 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    Markin, M

    I. Markin, M. Bulla, and T. Dietrich, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2601.19405 (2026), arXiv:2601.19405 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2026

  76. [76]

    Barnes and D

    J. Barnes and D. Kasen, Astrophys. J.775, 18 (2013), arXiv:1303.5787 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  77. [77]

    Bulla, Mon

    M. Bulla, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.489, 5037 (2019), arXiv:1906.04205 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  78. [78]

    Koehn, T

    H. Koehn, T. Wouters, P. T. H. Pang, M. Bulla, H. Rose, H. Wichern, and T. Dietrich, Astron. Astrophys.704, A55 (2025), arXiv:2507.13807 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  79. [79]

    Huet al., Astrophys

    L. Huet al., Astrophys. J. Lett.990, L46 (2025), arXiv:2506.22626 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2025

  80. [80]

    Topolski, S

    K. Topolski, S. D. Tootle, and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D111, 064022 (2025), arXiv:2409.06767 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

Showing first 80 references.